About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Cca 13, Ms. Miller 5, Jason 5, Us 4, San Francisco 4, Avalos 3, Germany 2, The City 2, Marin 1, Europe 1, U.s. 1, Fried 1, Eric Brooks 1, Danielle 1, Sf Puc 1, Caa 1, Lafco 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 23, 2012
    11:00 - 11:30pm PST  

11:00pm
and here in the city and those are really important to get the large scale renewable energy generation and additionally we might be able to use the program to efficient these programs and similar programs and it could be an important piece of getting to that 100% goal. >> in terms of the renewable energy study what's the next step. >> so we presented this to the mayor last week and he is very interested in moving forward and particular on some of the legislative pieces, and starting to -- for example, the example of pace into the federal legislative agenda and looking at supporting whether it's community or other pieces at the state level so we're talking about that as that legislative agenda comes up. we have the task force there. they're
11:01pm
happy to continue their work. they really enjoyed being part of this work and so close in step with the city so they are available and willing to move forward. we at the department are moving forward on a number of these recommendations which are in the full task force and our u.s. department of energy grant and looking at permitting and financing in particular and we have a grant from the frank foundation to continue implementation and planning around some of the recommendations so we have the recommendations for the task force and we're looking to bring it in house and look at measures that are implementable in the future and low cost and move forward quickly and identify funding for. >> does this study have to be adopted by anyone? >> it doesn't have to be. if the board of supervisors wanted to we're of course open to
11:02pm
that, but from my perspective it's a great tool for us to look at in guidance how we move forward with the energy policy and planning and with the electricity plan that we have from the sf puc that has been adopted by resolution i believe and it's a support document moving forward and provides background on the energy sector so it's a nice document to go back to for fact checking and data. >> i appreciate the thoroughness of the report. i do think it would be helpful to see a greater emphasis on clean power sf and i don't know how exactly we go about making that point, but i would certainly like to see more emphasis given to that because i just don't see how you can achieve all the objectives without fully implemented and robust community aggregation piece so i would like to see
11:03pm
some of that. i don't know if you mr. freed have any idea bs that. >> yes. jason fried i was a member and they determined i was staff and should be on the advisory side and not the committee side and to address what commissioner olague said at every meeting -- at some point during the meeting i said "we could achieve that if we had a cca program in the city" and in earlier drafts were it was connecting to the goals in there. when it came to the final draft instead of referencing cca in the recommendation sections it says sf puc. i am taking that to code they could do it in multiple ways, one which is a cca format, and one of the other things i will point out i brought up more than once the
11:04pm
fact we're looking altdoing 100% renewable in the city and the bay guard an pointed it out this week and no mention much public hour. >> >> and that's how you get to 100% and if that's the true goal there is only one way and have a public power system that is 100% renewable and that is never mentioned in this report. >> thank you very much. is there a response as to -- a couple of things. first, was there a decision to sort of deemphasize or -- or not emphasize as much community choice aggregation. i am wondering if you could comment on that. >> yeah, we tried to -- maybe not equal weight because there is different controls in the area but we wanted to do that throughout utility, through pg&e and through the city, and cca
11:05pm
as you know was still going through the process of being approved in its newest form. this fall when this is finalized so there were discussions with the mayor's office to make sure that it was more even between what we're able to do and what we have already on the books and what pg&e is offering to do, so i wouldn't say that it was strongly deemphasized but a lot of meat was in one recommendation about cca, and it really has far reaching implications and certainly it's discussed within other recommendations even if it doesn't get top billing in that recommendation. >> you said that came from the mayor's office? >> it was -- in conversation with the mayor's office as well as other task force members.
11:06pm
>> okay. so maybe you could sort of shed more light on that, so was there a directive from the mayor's office to not emphasize as much community choice aggregation? >> no. there is not a directive from him. they reviewed the draft and in our discussions with them they had concern -- as you know the mayor had concern with cca, and what they did request from us that we only make sure that the wording when we discuss cca was this a possibility and not a done deal at this point to have this program which was the case back at that point in early september. >> has there been a follow up since approved by the board of supervisors eight-three and highlight it more and it's not just a possibility but a reality? >> it hasn't since the text was finalized in september before
11:07pm
that was passed. obviously moving into forward of the recommendations and the implementation of the department or the city that will be very significant in what we can do going forward. >> thank you. did you want to add something. >> yeah i think on these reports timing is everything so i appreciate the fact that the report was done prior to the vote but i think in terms of recommendations that is also a ity riff process and you could adopt a res diewgz. also the board could adopt a res diewgz and they're consistent with the program and should be updated to show the progress that has been achieved since the report was finalized and what has happened during that time. >> i certainly will be interested in that. commissioner avalos. >> i would be interested in that as well and also the resolution
11:08pm
have a way to prioritize the recommendations and there are so many and we need a road map how they could be implemented and that seems like a big process too to come up with that and that way you could put the expansion of clean power sf at the very top of it because it's now what we approved as a city and the mayor will be supportive of it because it's in the context of this plan. i think it makes sense to do that. >> yeah, and i think we could do an update to what happened and there has been movement since this year. this was drafted in may and there has been a lot of motion in the last six months we could provide an update on. >>i know this is listed as a discussion item but bring a res diewgz for the next meeting and i encourage also in the next resolution a discussion of
11:09pm
public power generally and we can talk about the phrasing of that, but i think that -- it's hard to imagine how you even with cca, how you get to the objectives without other considerations. i mean you have a discussion of municipal load which is a good thing but i don't think that goes far enough. commissioner avalos. >> yeah. i just want to be clear of what i just said because i think it's important that we have -- i think 25 recommendations at least. >> 29. >> 39. >> 39. that's a lot like to list and then say we're going to do, and if there's a time lineline that can go through it or recommendations that are more salient than others to put forward to me that is important to include in the resolution
11:10pm
that gives some direction actually how we go to implementation of the plan. >>i would say when this was originally envisioned the idea would be we would get a recommendation from the task force and use that to move forward on recommendations that we should take forward and timelines of those and more economics on it and the task force didn't delve into that area and some are no or low cost but others like caa have large potential costs to the city and we didn't do that analysis. >> there is financial considerations. there is political considerations, and so if we have a document -- if we go to the next lafco meeting in january -- whenever it is. we will see the schedule later. it might be too quick to do that in a month and a different resolution for that, but i
11:11pm
think that si process that is essential that we go to and provide a road map. >> and the last page in the report and lists the recommendations and near term, mid-term or long-term so the next two to three or three to seven or longer term so we started that work but certainly a lot more to do. >> i also have a question on the emphasis on pg&e and i am wondering if you could talk more about that. i am curious why there is equal treatment of clean power sf and pg&e since you have a program with clean power sf where the city has more control over it and i am wondering if you could talk about that, and by the way was pg&e on the task force? >> yes pg&e was a member of the task force and they did ask at the -- when we had the final draft to be taken off of it because they didn't agree with all of the recommendations but
11:12pm
they were a valuable part of the task force and had insights and their policies, but in terms of the inclusion for example of the green option, if forever reason cca didn't pass and the board -- the task force wanted to acknowledge that is a possibility and there are other options with the iou such as the green option and we talked about the relative merits of that and what kind of program it would be and the local economic impacts would be of that, and of course we don't have control over the utility. we have control over cca so this was discussed but we didn't want to leave out the other options and that would be a program through pg&e. >> great. thank you very much. colleagues unless you have any other questions why don't we open it up to public comment, and again we appreciate the work, and we know that a lot of
11:13pm
the issues we're raising that not issues that staff ultimately decided. we know there are other ways in which that outcome was arrived at and we appreciate your work and look forward to working with you so public comment. >> good afternoon commissioners. eric brooks representing san francisco green party and the local organization our stea. i would concur with some of the concerns raised by the commissioners and the staff, and now that we have passed this as of september i think maybe the department of environment should be a follow up report. however, there are good and interesting things in this report that -- if you read them the right way point directly to community choice aggregation anyway and clean power sf. a couple of interesting things to point up are it was good that virtual
11:14pm
metering was brought up, but i think what staff needs to do now in preparing an addendum to the report at the department of environment dig into what happening right now under local power preparing for the local installation of clean power sf, the build out, because that is developing rapidly, and it's showing some interesting things as in the case of virtual metering this plan would go a step further and create shares and anyone that is a member of clean power sf even if they live in an apartment can buy shares to the program and receive economic benefit and part ownership of it no matter where the solar panels are and another thing to point out is the latest iteration for the build out
11:15pm
includes using express hetch hetchy power as you noted in your report. >> >> and currently sold outside of san francisco to bring the rates down with clean power sf so they can be brought into parity with what pg&e is charging right now, and then a further iteration just recently came out in our last meeting on the build out work is that local power has recommended not only doing that, but also to -- has configured a way to keep those same ways that pg&e or roughly the same and get to the 100% and buying them like the county of marin has done so i encourage environment staff to dig deep into what local power is working with the local puc and there is one caution i would like to raise and that is when local power came forward some of the environmentalists in the
11:16pm
room we were a little bit -- even though what they're doing is great and will compete with pg&e's 100% green option we need not to focus so much on purchasing. i think what we should do is change the 100% 2020 goal to locally produced energy from facilities beyond that date. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello commissioners. my name is paul congressmanus and part of. >> >> bon hundred% solar. there is a way to get to one heard% -- 100% and ignored in this country by the media so you might not have heard of it. it's a solar payment policy. it requires
11:17pm
pg&e to pay 54 cents kilowatt hour to homeowners that put panels on their roo. i know a hundred people in this town that are generating surplus and pg&e is basically stealing this surplus energy at the rate pg&e is paying, so it's simply a policy that the mayor can institute under executive powers, and get around pg&e that way. in germany it's created 400,000 new jobs. it's created $4 billion in cash flow through the economy and making the german economy the strongest in europe and it's the -- it basically is a policy that pays the homeowners so it makes investing in solar attractive to homeowners. right now it's not attractive to put a hundred solar panels on your roof, but
11:18pm
under this policy germany has made tremendous advances. there is one country in the world that is 100% solar power as of last month. cca cannot possibly do what they need done. the word -- you can boil this whole argument down to one question, one word and that is "inevitability". we are running out of the oil. we are drowning in our own waste. we need to stop burning oil and the way you could do it is putting a couple hundred solar panels on each house in san francisco. this was indirectly mentioned in the guardian editorial but they don't say it and it's because they don't understand it. it's important to understand what being done in germany and other countries around the world because by doing this they're creating a massive cash flow to homeowners in these countries and it's an investment that the
11:19pm
homeowners are glad to take the money out of equity and buy panels with. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker. seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues this is just a discussion item. mr. . fried. >> i wanted to thank danielle for the work that she did. there were two co-chairs one left the city family and got another job and she tooked over the work herself and even though i have criticisms i want to acknowledge she did an excellent job getting this through the process it went through and there were a lot of ideas that people had. there were other stuff want in the report and nothing to do with renewable energy generation and it could be used by the in the future
11:20pm
and i wanted to acknowledge that. >> thank you mr. fried and we do acknowledge her hard work and excellent presentation and we look forward to working with you. unless there are other comments madam clerk if you could call item four please. >> item number four, 2013 lafco meeting schedule. >> great. colleagues, as we're nearing the end of the calendar year this is our opportunity to talk about what our calendar looks like for the next coming calendar year, and i think you have a memo in your packets that's also available to members of the public that provides some recommendations from staff as to when our meetings could take place, so with that i will turn it over to mr. fried. >> thank you very much. jason
11:21pm
freed and tradition with lafco i tried to make all of the meetings the fourth friday of the month and with some exceptions and there is a break in august and then for november and december because of the holidays we try and combine one meeting at the beginning of december and we normally -- there are only two board supervisor meetings then so this is the friday that falls between the board meeting and the final adaption to that fourth friday is in may and it leads into a three day weekend where we have monday off we don't meet that friday and move it up one week so in may the meeting is the third friday rather than the fourth friday so that's the schedule as we traditionally did it. i put down the dates to make sure there are no major issues and if accepted by the body it will be the calendar
11:22pm
for next year. >> thank you. i don't know colleagues if you had a question and i had a question mr. fried or ms. miller one of the things we know for sure that will have to happen is we will have to have a number of joint meetings with san francisco public utilities commission to ascertain the progress being made on community choice aggregation, so i am wondering whether it makes sense to identify possible dates of the ones that are listed -- times as to when we could do that. do you have any thoughts on that. >> my initial thought is and as much as i enjoy meeting with our puc friends they can be difficult scheduling far in advance meetings with them. i know at the joint meeting we had there was a discussion of finding a date in february. we schedule the regular dates. if we could get them to join us we
11:23pm
do and if not we create a special meeting to meet with them and figure out what dates works for our of the busy commissioners. >> and my preference would be -- i don't think we have to adopt this as part of that that if we have a meeting in february we set it up as soon as we can. colleagues any questions or comments? if not why don't we open it up to public comment? any member public would like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed. so we have this item which is actual action item potential so so if we could have a motion to adopt the 2013 lafco meeting schedule. a motion by commissioner mar. seconded by vice chair avalos. can we take that vowt objection? thank you very much. madam clerk can you please call item
11:24pm
five. >> work plan and objectives for 2013. >> great. this is our opportunity to have a conversation about what calendar year, the coming calendar year, 2013 will look like in terms of goals, objectives, priorities for the local agency formation commission, so with that i will turn it over to ms. miller. >> thank you chair. i was wondering if you wanted to call the next item as well and we could discuss both at the items at the same time and has to do with staff structure. >> sure. unless there is any objection madam clerk if you could call item 62. >> item six is lafco structure. >> great. ms. miller. >> yes we're at the end of the year and we had a great year in terms of staff and what we accomplished and we try to look forward and in discussion with the chair about lafco's rules and responsibilities and next year type of work plan we
11:25pm
discussed the -- first the fact i have been the interim executive officer for five years now and that was supposed to be a temporary thing while we hire additional staff to work with the cca program and train that staff and hopefully turn that over to a staff person that is full time here at the city and of course i am not, so in looking at the work plan for next year jason fried, our senior program officer, has been working with lafco for two and a half years and has done an excellent job so the plan and work structure is based upon a transition of my duties as executive officer transitioning to your senior program officer and also a work plan that talks about expanding addition to the
11:26pm
executive officer role what is we do at lafco here for the next coming here. cca obviously will be part of that and we know what those responsibilities are, but also there are other activities that lafco has performed in the past and will continue to perform which are special studies on subjects as they are raised and are of concern to this commission and to the city and county of san francisco. we have done that in the past with a number of different issues that are outlined in the memo. i won't go through those here, but the idea here is that with jason as your on the ground executive officer here in san francisco he will have more time and ability to ferret out the studies and needs that are addressed in your commission so what we have before you for an action item is basically a
11:27pm
resolution that will go authorize the board of supervisors to amend the position that jason current sits in to be expanded to also include the executive officer position and also the work plan before you goes through some of the ideas that staff has regarding work plan for next year, but obviously that is subject to your direction approval, and authorization. >> if i may ms. miller thank you for that brief introduction. you do have a memo with respect to item six that outlines some of the options. let me say for me there are two main areas in terms of staff structure that we need to address. the first one which i think is more of sort of a technical area that deals
11:28pm
with the mechanics how lafco can do the work we have been doing has to do with the ability of lafco staff to focus on issues that go beyond community choice aggregation and legislatively we have to make sure we introduce something at the board of supervisors as i understand it that would allow lafco staff to actually be able to do that because i know there are a number of issues that we want to look at, and i think it would enhance the ability of lafco staff to do that, and unless -- i wanted to make sure people were aware of that and they had the opportunity to comment on that, but if it is the case as i imagine most of us feel it's appropriate to pursue that and make that change we will proceed to make that introduction at the board of supervisors. that's one area. the second area has to do with the structure of staff functions and for me this
11:29pm
is not about and the individual here with the interim executive officer who has done a great job and really navigated and helped us move forward for so many years in a very exemplary way. i do think as a general matters matter of principle, concept, policy it makes sense that the position be in house and have full time staff doing that and not to take anything away from ms. miller and our hope and expectation is that we continue to utilize her services. i think there would be savings